Results 21 - 40 of 109
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Chris Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6856 | ||
This is a good question, I prefer the Majority Text. This is not the Received Text, which if I recall correctly, was partially translated back to Greek from the Latin Vulgate. (Revelation, in my opinion, SHOULD NOT be studied with the Received Text. The number of disagreements between the RT and both the CT and the MT are staggering; though the variations are minor every word counts!) In brief, I believe the scribes of the New Testament were abundantly faithful, and the easiest mistake to make when coping something is omission not addition. The original texts for almost all of the books of the New Testament were originally sent or kept in the Antioch area, so these autographs could be used for verification of texts. Also, it is stated in the writings of the Church Fathers that some of the Churches in Eygpt were guilty of apostasy at this time.(The approximate time of the mss.) To add to what Tim said, all manuscripts in English are 98 percent the same. (The differences in spelling and word order usually do not show up in translations.) I realize my defense of the MT is weak but I have some great websites! (And unfortunately, there is no mass marketed traslation of the MT, only the RT. As I stated early, I will not study the book of Revelation with this text so I use the NASB as well.) Majority Text Advocate: Darkness to Light - http://www.dtl.org/index.html Critical Text Advocate: Dallas Theological Seminary - http://www.bible.org/index.htm |
||||||
22 | NASB95 study bible??? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6858 | ||
The best Bible I own is the one I just received, The Key Word Study Bible, Editor Spiros Zodhiates. Unfortunately, it is the 1977 NASB, but if you want a STUDY Bible this is it! The size is managable, it includes the definition of many Greek and Hebrew terms and the complete Strong's Definitions. Key words in the text are labelled with the Strong's number the it corresponds to, this Bible is great! Go to the Catalog caption at the top of the Forum website and you can scroll through ALL NASB 95 and 77 Bibles. There are lots to choose from! |
||||||
23 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6899 | ||
Nolan, Actually, the Critical and the Majority are almost identical in Revelation, it's the Received Text that has so many variations. (I think the reason is that the fella that put the text together only had 6 Greek texts and all of them were missing portions of Revelation, so he translated the Latin Vulgate BACK to Greek.) Actually, the Majority Text is 'critically' appraised just like the Critical Text, but the two oldest manuscripts, which are the basis for the CT, are not given extra weight.(At least this is my understanding, I'm often wrong on these issues and my memory is not always reliabe! Darkness to Light is quite thorough on this issue, but you will have to ignore some of the reformed theology talk!) The Majority Text does give older manuscripts more weight, but not as disproprtiantly as the Critical. I would simply like a NASB Bible with all the variants between the CT and MT compared, in the back of the Bible or in the margin, like the NKJV. Unfortunately, the NKJV uses the RT and shows variants between the RT and MT and CT, so you end up looking in the margins more than you do in the text! (slight exaggeration:-) I also noticed that a new translation , the Holman Christian Standard Bible lables all varients but it doesn't tell you which is a varient from the MT verses a variant from the RT, HCSB uses the CT for the text. I don't trust the RT if the MT does not agree with it, see I Jn 5:7b in a KJV or NKJV, "For there are three that bear witness (in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.)" The brackets show what amount of this verse is in neither the MT nor the CT! This addition is only in a handful of manuscripts, and I do believe there was some tampering with the holy Scripture but it was late (after 1000AD?) shortly before the printing press. These variants are clearly weeded out by the Majority Text. One other note, an honest consideration of the book of Hebrews forces one to admit that the writer was using the LXX for quotations rather than the Hebrew Old Testament. And, some of the quotations used are not found in the Hebrew OT, so if GOD decided that the LXX was good enough for quotations in the NT, any of these three mss will lead us to the truth! GOD bless! |
||||||
24 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 6900 | ||
I'd like to add one more thing, Nolan. I truly believe that the CT and MT are great texts, thoroughly reliable, but often times I pick and choose which I believe is more accurate in certain situations. Examples: Mark 16:9-20, I tend to favor the CT, because the language in these verses is substantailly different from that of the rest of the book. There is also a viable reason for adding to this text, I believe the end was lost, and some good minded scribe was trying to remember the basic message given by Jesus. John 1:42,21:15-17 - I favor the MT, because we know from Matthew that Simon was called, "BarJonah" bar is an Aramaic word meaning son. So, was Peter the son of John or Jonah? Col 1:2 - This one drives me crazy! Paul always begins his letters with a salutation from the Father and the Son, off hand I don't know one letter by Paul that didn't include some time of greeting in the name of the Father and the Son, but the CT states, "Grace to you and peace from GOD our Father." That just doesn't sound right!! Here I obviously prefer the MT, "Grace to you and peace from GOD our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Great question, GOD bless!! |
||||||
25 | NASB95 study bible??? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 7358 | ||
Hey rover, I previously responed to your question, but I would like to modify my answer! I am reviewing a Ryrie Expanded Edition Study Bible, and I must admit that it is the most thorough study Bible I own! Unfortunately, I have the NIV version which is why it is not my number 1, but this study Bible in the NASB would be lights out(it is available in NASB95)! I have a website for a great deal on these Bibles, if you haven't already purchased one. If you would like it, respond back to me and give me you e-mail address! Extras that this Bible includes: A Synopsis of Bible Doctine (quite even handed, but Ryrie is a famed Dispensationalist!) Articles on: Bible inspiration, understanding the Bible, how we got the Bible, meaning and blessings of Salvation, archaelolgy and the Bible. Brief Survey of Church History Topical Index of Scripture Concordance (35000 entries in my NIV, WOW!) |
||||||
26 | What???????????????????????????????????? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 8543 | ||
Hey Lionstrong, I’m writing in defense of Dispensationalism, and the aspects of dispensationalism described by Mr. Clark are correct. Unfortunately, his attempt to discredit this theology is shameful, at best! This author has chosen to set up dispensationalism as a ‘straw man.’(A perspective so weak that any rational interpretation of scripture rejects that perspective.) This is always done by making general claims about some form of Biblical interpretation and neglecting to mention the justifications and arguments for that interpretation. In this case, Mr. Clark makes some assumptions of his own and, without mentioning the dispensational view, concludes that dispensationalism is idiotic! I’m going to attempt to mention the weaknesses in Mr. Clark’s argument and give Biblical support of the dispensational view, but whether I succeed or fail, I’d encourage you to neglect this writer’s opinions; because, he obviously is willing to misinterpret the facts, or ignore them altogether, to support his view. I don’t want you to think I’m judging you or your theological perspective, there are many dispensationalists that set up reformed theology as a ‘straw man.’ And, I would not suggest reading them either! Any debate must be well considered and well researched, if the writer doesn’t do his/her homework, they should always be ignored. Ten Commandments before Moses: Gen. 2:3, 9:1-17; Romans 2:12-16. The claim was that Genesis ‘implied’ that the Ten Commandments were given to Adam. I disagree, if the giving of the Ten Commandments was so important for Moses as to be referenced more than once in the Law, why would they not warrant mention in the book of Genesis? You quote that the Commandments were repeated to Noah, where? See Gen. 9:1-17: in vs. 4 we see a prohibition from eating animals with their blood still in them. (Would that be ceremonial? It’s not one of the Ten, is it?) And, if we study vs. 6, we see that it is not a prohibition against murder, though clearly that was wrong by the vss implication, but rather a method of governing human activity. Whoever hurts a human being, by humans he will be hurt; hence the dispensation of human government. I don’t see anything in these verses that resembles the Ten Commandments! Finally, see Rms 2:12-16, in these verses Paul states that Gentiles did not have the Law (which includes the Ten), but if Adam and Noah had the Law in the form of the Ten, then the Gentiles would have had some of the Law but see vs. 12 ‘without the Law.’ But, Paul says in vs 14 that the Gentiles who ‘instinctively’ or ‘by nature’ do the things of the Law, so there must be an instinct in man to live according to some of GOD’s Laws, and I believe any resemblance between Genesis and the Ten can more appropriately be explained by this ‘instinct.’ Romans 5:13, 14: There are two main interpretations to these verses! Some interpret it in a similar way to Mr. Clark, without adding infant and voluntarily! Dispensationalism is actually more appropriate, in my view, with this interpretation! At the end of vs 13 we read, “but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Mr. Clark, along with many others, realized that this ‘law’ is not the Law of Moses (and again, the Law of Moses includes the Ten), so what is this ‘law’? Obviously, it is some standard GOD set up before the Law to determine whether a man was righteous or not. This is exactly what Dispensationalism says! Each dispensation has a standard to which man must attain to be pleasing before GOD, some get closer than others (Noah, Abraham, Job). The other mainstream interpretation of these vss would be rejected by anyone of the Reformed persuasion, so there’s no use in discussing how well it interacts with Dispensationalism. Dispensational Support: Romans 3:21; 4:15, 16; 6:15; 7:1-6; 8:3-4 I didn’t continue past the book of Romans, I feel anything more would be repetitive. 3:21 - ‘apart from the Law’ the righteousness of GOD is displayed in Christ without the burden of the Law! 4:15,16 - Salvation comes to those NOT under the Law! 6:15 - We are NOT under the Law (there’s nothing in the text to suggest that Paul only means SOME of the Law) but under GRACE! 7:1-6 - When one dies they are FREED from the Law, we have died with Christ! See vs. 6, “But now we have been released from the Law,” again, nothing to suggest that Paul only means SOME of the Law! 8:3,4 - The requirement of the Law has been fulfilled by Christ, including the Ten Commandments! Rebuttal of so-called ‘contradictions’: Of course Paul is NOT disparaging toward the Law! It is Holy, but we are NOT! Paul states that knowing the Law gave sin opportunity, so even though the Law is Holy, its affect on a man with a sinful nature is devastating, so GOD delivered us from the Law, including the Ten! |
||||||
27 | Please add prayer requests in user info | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 8813 | ||
I'd like to make a suggestion, we may already be doing this, but can we start putting are prayer requests in our user information? May requests are there, and I would appreciate any and all prayer in the name of our Lord Jesus! I hope many others will (are) doing the same:-) | ||||||
28 | Stae violation of worshhip, what to do? | Bible general Archive 1 | Chris | 58319 | ||
Chebanne, I agree that people should be free to worship how they wish, but where on earth did you learn to interpret your reading? If you think that Hebrews Ch. 4 is about the Saturday Sabbath you have truly missed the boat! We don't need to go into whether Paul wrote Hebrews, but this sabbath issue takes the cake. Is the word sabbath mentioned in Hebrews Ch. 4? Hebrews Ch. 4 is about how the Christian enters into the rest of GOD continually, not on Saturdays, when s/he gives up their work toward salvation and rest in GOD's finished work at calvary. This is the Spiritual representation of the Sabbath and it shows that for the Christian there isn't a one day literial fulfillment of the Sabbath, but rather a continual Spiritual fulfillment. People should have the right to worship when they please, but Hebrews Ch. 4 doesn't support your preference. GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
29 | Why was Christ baptized? | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 2678 | ||
The Bible plainly says, "'I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.' John testified saying, " I have seen the Spirit desending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ' He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.' So, one reason, there may be more, was to let the forerunner know whom he was running for. (Is whom correct there?) |
||||||
30 | Why was Christ baptized? | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 2708 | ||
Sorry!! John 1:28-34. GOD bless! | ||||||
31 | Why was Christ baptized? | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 2722 | ||
Your absolutely right about that, I hadn't seen that in the passage, but I do believe that the remainder of the passage suggests that John, himself also realized who Jesus was after the baptism and descending of the Spirit, and I think the passage suggests that this was one reason for the baptism. Jn 1:32-34: John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him. *I did not recongnize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom [you] see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit*. I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God." [you] - I assume that this is John, yea or nay? |
||||||
32 | Chronological events of ressurection day | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 2890 | ||
This is my personal piecework, with alot of help from the Scofield Study Bible. The women are walking to the tomb, and hear the earthquake (or feel it:-), and Mary Magdalene, one of the younger women, beats the rest of the women to the tomb. Mary M. sees the empty tomb and runs to Peter; meanwhile, the other women get to the tomb and see the angles, after this they get flustered and runaway. (They must not have know where the apostles were or they went a different way in fear, because otherwise they would have ran into Peter and John.)Peter and John get to the tomb and look in and leave; while, Mary M. stays weeping, and Jesus speaks to her, "Stop clinging to Me." Then she runs to the apostles. The women are a little lost in their excitement until they see Jesus, and He sets them on their way. Peter comes back to the tomb and Jesus appears to him. Then the fellas on the Demascus Road. After, or before Demascus the other 9 apostles get involved, excluding Thomas! Tell me if I missed anything! GOD bless!! | ||||||
33 | I need answers to several questions . | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 5718 | ||
1. Check I Tim 2:12-14, many in the Church question this verse, but the meaning in clear. In addition, the Nelson Study Bible has some good info conserning this verse, "Paul uses a Greek word that indicates the type of teaching that was found in the Jewish communities and synagogues from which he had come. Such teaching was more than giving information to students. It included the call by the rabbi, or teacher, to have his disciples listen, believe, and practice his words." In other words, a woman should not have doctirnal control or primary leadership over a Church. 2. Actually, I believe the way He speaks has changed. Start with Heb. 1:1-2, this suggest to me a change in the method of communication through the Son, exclusively. Paul tells us in Colossians 3:16, "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you," (NASB) and if you compare this Scripture with Eph. 5:18-20, a very similar command, which tells us to be 'filled with the Spirit'. I believe Paul is talking about the same thing with two different titles. If you look through the book of Acts, the apostles are usually 'prompted', or a word similar to that, by the Holy Spirit. The HS dwells in all believers and its our job to get rid of the carnal baggage (deeds of the flesh) so we can hear Him clearly. The only clear OT style communication in Acts is the conversion of Paul, and that is not the rule but the exception. There are a couple of examples of 'visions' or dreams, but this is not the norm either.(Please correct me if I'm wrong about the communications in Acts, or if you interpret it differently!:-) 3. Music instruments are all over the Old Testament, and there is no reason not to have them in Church. I know one denomination does not allow intsruments of any kind, but this is based upon, in my opinion, a poor basis of interpretation. What I mean by that is that this denomination refuses to allow anything in Church that is not CLEARLY asked for in the New Testament. I disagree with this because the OT is still relevant in many ways to us today, and considering that the apostles and our Lord were poor, they could not buy instruments even if they wanted them. So, the shear amount of instruments in the OT, I believe, justifies them in the NT Church. 4. No Scriptural requirement, but I believe we as Christians with an individual and personal relationship with Jesus Christ, should consider His sacrifice as often as we eat; because, He is our source of life! But when discussing the ceremonial communion performed in Church I have no suggestion. Hope this helps! GOD bless!! |
||||||
34 | The Christian and the Law of God | NT general Archive 1 | Chris | 7780 | ||
Lionstrong, I didn't take your last comments in a negative tone, but I wanted to ask, did you mean to suggest that dispensationalist are 'followers' of Scofield, or simply mean we follow the teaching he popularized? "In 1965, Dr. Charles Ryrie refocused dispensationalism. He suggested that what was essential to dispensationalism was not necessarily a specific prophetic timetable or belief in a certain number of dispensations. The essence of dispensationalism was a threefold sine qua non: 1. an understanding that the basic purpose of God's plan in history is manifesting His own glory, 2. a consistent employment of a normal or plain interpretation of the Scriptures,(This plain interpretation includes the correct identification and interpretation of figures of speech, symbols, and apocalyptic imagery. The problem is that the covenant theologians and other non-dispensationalists identification of these figures is much broader than the dispensationalist interpretation and is inconsistently applied. (Robert Dean Jr.)) 3. and a distinction between God's plan for ethnic and national Israel and the New Testament Church." (Essentials of Dispensational Theology,Robert Dean, Jr.) Lastly, I'd like to research your comments about Moral and Civil vs Ceremonial law in the New Testament. Could you give me the Scriptures that teach us that we are still under the Moral Law and no longer under the Ceremonial and Civil Law? Thanks, GOD bless! |
||||||
35 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Chris | 2762 | ||
All in Genesis Ch. 1(Creation Story). I believed in both for a long time Hank. Evolution seems to mirror the story of Creation in a general fashion, but it only works at first glance or from a distance. The more specifically you study either, the more they cancel each other out and eventually become mutually exclusive (at least in my experience). Creation: if you study the hebrew words in the creation story and review the exact definitions (created, and notice where, when, and how often the word is used) there is simply no way these words can allow a slow gradual evolution form one form of existance to all the others, this would allow for only one 'created' being, a single cell! Evolution: evolution theory would reject water animals and BIRDS before land animals. Evolution says birds came after reptiles, which came after ?amphibians? (frogs!!), so not only were there water/land animals but also the most pimitive land/water animals (my terminology). The Bible discusses NO land animals until after birds. Evolution is also based upon random mutations in beings that, when the mutations are positive, continue on through the process of natural selection. This completely rejects the idea of design and/or purpose which is a primary force in the Creation story. This is a difficult area Hank, all I can tell you is that at some point all christians are forced to separate themselves from the world. For me, this question was a difficult time in my walk with Christ, I hope you're not having the trouble I was having. I am naturally an analytical person, and it seems like, when a was at this point I was asking Christ to prove Himself to me daily on an analytical basis. I can joyfully say He did, at least He did for me. If you are going through what I went through I will be praying for GOD speed and blessing to you, Hank! Let me know if you need these prayers, or just the general kind!:-) |
||||||
36 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Chris | 2764 | ||
Additional note, Hank. God created man from the DUST of the earth, completely unacceptable in evolutionary theory, we all came from the pond! (so they say) | ||||||
37 | Time lapse between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:3. | Gen 1:2 | Chris | 58564 | ||
Makarios, I know this is an old post, so I apologize. But there is some Scripture that supports the Gap theory. The first important point is the difference between the words 'created' and 'made' in the creation account, I'm sure you know the difference between these two. The Gap theory proposes that Gen 1.1 is the creation of the universe and earth, whereas everything after that, up to the creation of man, is a refashioning of sorts. The purpose of the refashioning is that the original creation was judged for something, the usual suggestion is the fall of satan. What is the support? First, look to Isaiah 45:18, "For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah; and there is none else." (ASV) Notice that both 'created' and 'made' are used in this verse, so there is a recognition of the difference. It says that GOD didn't create the earth 'void' translated here waste, but it is the same hebrew word used in Gen 1:2, 'and the earth was formless and void' (from memory). Now, you may say, as many have, 'but that is not what Isaiah is suggesting.' Well, that's a matter of opinion, but it is most certainly what Isaiah said! So, this is the reason why this theory should be looked into, not to counter act evolutionists and/or geologist. OK, so there might be a reason to question the exact meaning of Gen 1.1-2, but why the suggestion of judgement? I'm glad you asked! :-) The only other times that 'without form and void' are used as conjuctions speak of terrible judgement via the wrath of GOD! Isa. 34:11, "But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out on it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness." (AKJV; confusion, without form, emptiness, void) Jer. 4.23, "I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was waste and void; and the heavens, and they had no light." (ASV; waste, formless) So, we have reason to believe that the earth was not originially created without form and void, and we have reason to believe that the earth was without form and void due to Divine Judgment, which is a wonderful segway to mention that, as you know, 'was' in Gen 1.2 can be rendered 'became'. In addition to this we have the curious use of the word 'made' throughout the Creation account rather than 'create'. And that brings us to your text; Ex. 20:11, "for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Notice that this verse uses the word 'made' not 'created', hence GOD refashioned the heavens and the earth in 6 days, the verse says nothing of when He created it. I see no reason to be dogmatic about something as ambiguous as the Creation account, but others do and it is very important to remember that Scripture should never be presented to unfairly favor one side or another. There are parts and interpretations of the Bible that suggest a young earth, but there are parts and interpretations that suggest an old earth too! So, let GOD inform us completely when He deems appropriate. GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
38 | Study Bible Forum -- or Circus? | Gen 1:17 | Chris | 6860 | ||
Hank, I am inclined to agree with you. As one of those who has been involved in arguing, I apologize. I do not, however, believe that this forum should simply be a Bible trivia game or a stage for us to compare notes in our study Bibles. I believe this forum should be an opportunity for true seekers of GOD to discuss their understandings and experiences as Christians. I believe we should be exhorting, encouraging, and challenging each other to be more devoted bond-slaves of Christ Jesus. I think one problem has been that many folks (including myself) have asked questions that they have already made a decision about and are simply hoping to defend what they believe! I believe that we have been too busy defending what we believe rather than revealing what we don't know. Perhaps we still have not realized our helpless states, for though we admit to Jesus that we are helpless, we are still unwilling to admit it to each other! If we want to create a limitless Study Bible we need more than verse searches and book interpretations! We need progress reports from genuine Christians with genuine motives and genuine humility. We need to use each other as resources and encouragement. Since I am the one with all the suggestions, I'll be the one with a new line of questions: I've been struggling for some time now with GOD's will for my life. I know all the Scriptures, and I know that GOD's will for me first is to be sanctified, my question is, how do I know when I should be hearing from GOD? There have been times in my walk when I truly believe I would've been willing to drop everything and leave for Africa, but I never heard the 'call'. How do I know GOD has a particular will for my life, if I don't hear His 'call'? For any who have heard His 'call' for service, how did it happen, how did you hear, how did you know? I know the Bible teaches that He has a plan for each one of us, but at times I question that because I don't know what I should be doing! Has GOD dealt with any of you on this matter? How has GOD spoken to you? Do we all get a 'call'? As one Christian to others, I ask, what do I do next? GOD bless! |
||||||
39 | Tim, more help please?? | Gen 2:1 | Chris | 58669 | ||
Tim, As a witness to two sets of new grandparents I can tell you that you will just get younger when that little baby is born!! GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
40 | What about human cloning? | Gen 2:7 | Chris | 2763 | ||
I believe it is a very dangerous area, because we are tampering with GOD's responsibility! One of my key passages of scripture is Psalm 131, and I believe that unless we are explicitly asked we should not get involved with GOD's stuff! Everything we humans mess with we screw up, at least we do for 30 years or so and then we say, Oh no! we've got to go fix it (see health research, environment, wild life, etc.; I am very guilty of generalization here, sorry!!). This one (cloning) may be to tough to fix!! However, I don't believe in getting too involved in the government (protest, etc.), again I reference my focus scripture of Ps 131, I don't see anyplace in scripture were GOD specifically asks me to try to rule over a world under the sway of the evil one. Just my opinion, and here in West Virginia, and other places, we have a saying, "Opinions are like rear ends, every bodies got'em and they usually stink!" And remember, you did say 'all'! GOD bless!! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |